Guest Fritz Wuehler Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 I think Google is attempting to integrate their groups search with their regular web search. Searches that show only a few hits in groups, are lately showing quite a few more hits in the web search, but their groups are completely FUBAR. About the only thing that still works fine in groups is the ability of spammers to continue spamming through googlegroups.com with impunity. Everything else in groups has gone kerplunk. Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good. Google took over defunct Deja News some years ago. I wonder who will take over the billion usenet pages in broken Google Groups? Quote
Guest Andrew Heenan Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 "Fritz Wuehler" wrote ... > Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at > this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good. And your home planet is ... -- Andrew http://www.seo2seo.com/ http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/ First things first - but not necessarily in that order. Quote
Guest Fritz Wuehler Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 I spoke to soon. I ran some more tests on Groups. It's still acting strange. It seems to flip out when you use more than one search term. Those Google "wizards" must still be working on it. "Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote: >"Fritz Wuehler" wrote ... >> Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at >> this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good. > >And your home planet is ... >-- Quote
Guest Fritz Wuehler Posted August 4, 2007 Posted August 4, 2007 "Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote: >"Fritz Wuehler" wrote ... >> Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at >> this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good. > >And your home planet is ... >-- I deserved that. My bad. I was about to reply with some search examples, showing that the groups search engine was broken. But I figured out that I was using the old syntax, /groups/search?q=, instead of /groups?q=, which does the trick. They are miracle workers, those search wizards at Google. My only complaint is that they don't reign in the spammers who abuse their google groups accounts. I bet 98 percent of all usenet spam has "googlegroups.com" in the message id. Quote
Guest Andrew Heenan Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 "Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message news:4995d4e80e3bf6dc8bcf7dc2dab3743a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net... > They are miracle workers, those search wizards at Google. My only > complaint is that they don't reign in the spammers who abuse their google > groups accounts. I bet 98 percent of all usenet spam has > "googlegroups.com" in the message id. I totally agree I'm amazed at how little Google has done about Usenet spam - pretty much nothing. But I think your percentage is waaay too high - google groupers only account for 97.632% But there are many simple options that could be added tomorrow 1. an option to ignore all crossposted threads o) 2. killfiling made easier 3. blocking by email address would cut down many cranks who change their username daily 4. A loss of Google account for persistant spammers 5. A 'click here to report spam' addition to every google groups post - once enough unique clicks were recieved, the post would be deleted. once a higher threshhold, the spammer would be taken out and shot. Well, deleted, at least! Google are ahead of the pack on dealing with mail abuse (though they still have miles to go), whu don't they do better of Usenet? -- Andrew http://www.seo2seo.com/ http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/ First things first - but not necessarily in that order. Quote
Guest Roy Schestowitz Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 ____/ Fritz Wuehler on Friday 03 August 2007 22:09 : \____ > I think Google is attempting to integrate their groups search with their > regular web search. Searches that show only a few hits in groups, are > lately showing quite a few more hits in the web search, but their groups > are completely FUBAR. About the only thing that still works fine in groups > is the ability of spammers to continue spamming through googlegroups.com > with impunity. Everything else in groups has gone kerplunk. > > Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at > this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good. > > Google took over defunct Deja News some years ago. I wonder who will > take over the billion usenet pages in broken Google Groups? Some time ago I read about an open source project that is intended to bring Deja back to life. -- ~~ Best of wishes Previously-unsurpassed exposure makes carnation-faced men http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.27 1.02 0.93 3/137 27090 http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative Quote
Guest Fritz Wuehler Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 "Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote: >"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message >news:4995d4e80e3bf6dc8bcf7dc2dab3743a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net... >> They are miracle workers, those search wizards at Google. My only >> complaint is that they don't reign in the spammers who abuse their google >> groups accounts. I bet 98 percent of all usenet spam has >> "googlegroups.com" in the message id. > >I totally agree I'm amazed at how little Google has done about Usenet >spam - pretty much nothing. > >But I think your percentage is waaay too high - google groupers only account >for 97.632% > >But there are many simple options that could be added tomorrow > >1. an option to ignore all crossposted threads o) >2. killfiling made easier >3. blocking by email address would cut down many cranks who change their >username daily >4. A loss of Google account for persistant spammers >5. A 'click here to report spam' addition to every google groups post - once >enough unique clicks were recieved, the post would be deleted. once a higher >threshhold, the spammer would be taken out and shot. Well, deleted, at >least! > >Google are ahead of the pack on dealing with mail abuse (though they still >have miles to go), whu don't they do better of Usenet? > > >-- It is a wonderment. I have read in other groups where people who are sick of gg spam have filtered "*googlegroups.com" by message id, like a personal udp. I don't know if any news servers are doing that, I hope they are not, because we are still getting 2.368% (winks) of honest users of the free Google Groups web to usenet posting service. From a practical standpoint, I would guess there are millions of subscribers to Google Groups accounts. I wonder if they are working on a system that separates frivolous complaints from real commercial spam complaints, to make it more efficient for Google to respond to them. We see they are still sorting things out between groups and web search, so it is possible that they are still trying to sort things out on the "Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com" front, as well. How many emails are sent to that address, a quarter million per day? The curse of success, unmanageably large volume of customers, users, interested parties. Quote
Guest Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote: >____/ Fritz Wuehler on Friday 03 August 2007 22:09 : \____ > >> I think Google is attempting to integrate their groups search with their >> regular web search. Searches that show only a few hits in groups, are >> lately showing quite a few more hits in the web search, but their groups >> are completely FUBAR. About the only thing that still works fine in groups >> is the ability of spammers to continue spamming through googlegroups.com >> with impunity. Everything else in groups has gone kerplunk. >> >> Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at >> this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good. >> >> Google took over defunct Deja News some years ago. I wonder who will >> take over the billion usenet pages in broken Google Groups? > >Some time ago I read about an open source project that is intended to bring >Deja back to life. > >-- I'm thinking pun here. Quote
Guest Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 "Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote: >"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message >news:4995d4e80e3bf6dc8bcf7dc2dab3743a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net... >> They are miracle workers, those search wizards at Google. My only >> complaint is that they don't reign in the spammers who abuse their google >> groups accounts. I bet 98 percent of all usenet spam has >> "googlegroups.com" in the message id. > >I totally agree I'm amazed at how little Google has done about Usenet >spam - pretty much nothing. > >But I think your percentage is waaay too high - google groupers only account >for 97.632% > >But there are many simple options that could be added tomorrow > >1. an option to ignore all crossposted threads o) >2. killfiling made easier >3. blocking by email address would cut down many cranks who change their >username daily >4. A loss of Google account for persistant spammers >5. A 'click here to report spam' addition to every google groups post - once >enough unique clicks were recieved, the post would be deleted. once a higher >threshhold, the spammer would be taken out and shot. Well, deleted, at >least! > >Google are ahead of the pack on dealing with mail abuse (though they still >have miles to go), whu don't they do better of Usenet? > > >-- It is a wonderment. I have read in other groups where people who are sick of gg spam have filtered "*googlegroups.com" by message id, like a personal udp. I don't know if any news servers are doing that, I hope they are not, because we are still getting 2.368% (winks) of honest users of the free Google Groups web to usenet posting service. From a practical standpoint, I would guess there are millions of subscribers to Google Groups accounts. I wonder if they are working on a system that separates frivolous complaints from real commercial spam complaints, to make it more efficient for Google to respond to them. We see they are still sorting things out between groups and web search, so it is possible that they are still trying to sort things out on the "Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com" front, as well. How many emails are sent to that address, a quarter million per day? The curse of success, unmanageably large volume of customers, users, interested parties. Quote
Guest Michael Yardley Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 In Usenet newsgroup (24 hour support"computers") I saw a poster Binky or some name handle and their www tag had a site that was trying to block all googly posters, called all googly posters "lamers". Googly groups are full of kids, retired pensioners with nothing better to do then site on their computers posting dribble. As more people get computers and are hooked up to the NET IT will get worse. This is what I do. I stick to forums (manufacturers man pages) on my topic of interest and it seems to work out better. Less spam posts and more quality posts .. People who use re-mailers are idiots all the sites have sniffers on and many are run by hackers and security people. This one is run by the CIA https://zerofreedom.homeip.net/cgi-bin/mixnews-user.cgi where you posted from they have you IP so you are not so anonymous. Quote
Guest Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer Posted August 5, 2007 Posted August 5, 2007 Michael Yardley <yardleymj@yahoo.ca> wrote: >In Usenet newsgroup (24 hour support"computers") I saw a poster Binky >or some name handle and their www tag had a site that was trying to >block all googly posters, called all googly posters "lamers". Googly >groups are full of kids, retired pensioners with nothing better to do >then site on their computers posting dribble. As more people get >computers and are hooked up to the NET IT will get worse. This is >what I do. I stick to forums (manufacturers man pages) on my topic of >interest and it seems to work out better. Less spam posts and more >quality posts >. >People who use re-mailers are idiots all the sites have sniffers on >and many are run by hackers and security people. > >This one is run by the CIA >https://zerofreedom.homeip.net/cgi-bin/mixnews-user.cgi >where you posted from they have you IP so you are not so anonymous. Then there are the "googly" comedians, unruly amateurs, the schnockered hecklers who inject incoherent babble into every conversation. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.